Planning Board Meeting
October 21, 2013
Attending: Richard Fon, John Flynn, John Savoca, Darlene Rivera, Ann Kutter
1. Competition Carting
After a discussion with Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, that touched on several issues, the Board decided that there were too many unresolved issues for it to make a recommendation to the ZBA. Summing up the Board’s concerns, Mr. Fon said that the Board wasn’t saying “no” to the request, just asking questions to make sure that whatever is done is done the right way. In lieu of a recommendation to the ZBA, the Board directed Mr. Tegeder to send a memo to the ZBA in time for its October 24 meeting highlighting its concerns.
Need for a site plan. Questions continued about the main use of the site (conduct of a business or simply storage and what use was primary and what an accessory use), what section of the zoning code was applicable, whether the use was allowed in an I-2 zone and the status of the “temporary” trailer Depending on the answers to the questions, a site plan may or may not be required. The Board will request an interpretation from the building inspector and depending on his findings, the matter may have to be referred to the ZBA for an interpretation. Mr. Ciarcia said the trailer would be scaled down in size and only used for employee time clocks and GPS tracking. Mr. Tegeder noted that temporary trailers were only permitted as part of construction projects.
While the previous use of the site for outdoor storage of construction materials dating back to the 1980s was referred to, Mr. Tegeder noted that that use had since lapsed and questions about the use of the site needed to finally be resolved. Mr. Flynn asked for more information about the number and nature of the trucks using the site: garbage, recycling, and oilers used to maintain the trucks.
Gate across Richard Pl.
While Mr. Ciarcia explained that the Town Board had no problem with the gate (see previous meeting), Mr. Tegeder noted that town code required Planning Board approval for the closing off of a road, even a paper road. He said that there might be a future need for the road parcel in the event that the Depot Square project went forward and he asked Mr. Ciarcia, why the applicant couldn’t fence off both parcels on either side of the road. Mr. Ciarcia stated that when the town took ownership of the parcel, it was not necessarily for road purposes.
Time period for special permit. In response to a question from Ms. Kutter as to how long the special permit might be good for, Karen Wagner, the Board’s attorney explained that the ZBA could put time limits on the permit with the requirement that the applicant come back to the Board for periodic renewals.
Wetlands issues. Bruce Barber expressed concern over the possibility of chemical spills on the site and the need to consider whether the applicant needed a wetlands permit. He also expressed concern about the weight of the trucks on the gravel surface and how this might impact drainage as well as the possible need for a stormwater plan.
Other issues included employee parking, the possible need for screening along the abutting trailway and how potential contaminants would be contained.
In response to a question from Ms. Kutter about whether Yorktown Recycling, a separate business located on Front Street at the corner of Richard Place ,was using any of the Competition Carting site to store recyclables, Mr. Ciarcia said no.
2. Ryder subdivision
The Board asked the applicant to consider alternate layouts for the proposed 2 lot subdivvision that took into account the wetlands and the future location for two septic fields.
3. State Land Corporation
As a follow up to a 2012 memo indicating that the Board needed more information prior to issuing a recommendation on the proposed rezoning, Mr. Tegeder advised the Board that a “beefed up” EAF had been submitted. The only change in the revised submission was that based on the town’s reduced parking requirements, some square footage had been added to a second floor, leaving the building’s footprint unchanged.
The Board supported the rezoning of the front portion of the parcel for commercial use, noting that it was more environmentally sensitive than previous plans for either residential development or a differently configured commercial developed. As proposed in the conceptual plan, the rezoning also avoided the impact of any additional school children, it had less of a traffic impact, and it protected the habitat for several species by not chopping up the site.
The Board’s major concern dealt with the future of the “upper” portion of the site north of the proposed right of way for the Bear Mountain Parkway, or, as expressed by Mr. Fon: how to protect that area so as not to get burnt at some future date if and when a site plan comes in with a different configuration of buildings. The Board was concerned that rezoning the entire parcel to C-1 left open the possibility that a future site plan could be submitted that called for developing some of the “open space,” a possibility Mr. Capellini acknowledged could happen.
The Board’s attorney will look into the legal feasibility of attaching a condition to the rezoning that would require the future donation of the land to the town, an idea Mr. Capellini did not think was legal. An alternate approach would be rezoning only the lower portion of the site, including some “wiggle room” north of the proposed buildings to give the DOT flexibility for siting any future Bear Mountain Parkway. Mr. Capellini said that based on meetings with the DOT, there is no decision on where the future road might be.
John Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the Advisory Committee on Open Space advised the Board that his group was opposed to using any of the Sylvan Glen Preserve to the north of the site for any stormwater retention ponds. In response Mr. Capellini noted that that plan had nothing to do with the proposed commercial bjuildings and was an “extra” that the property was willing to do in response to a request from the town.